[jacquesm]

What could possibly go wrong...

Don't you ever think about what the balance of good and bad is when you make something like this? What's the upside? What's the downside?

In this particular case I can only see downsides, if there are upsides I'd love to hear about them. All I see is my elderly family members getting 'me' on their phones asking for help, and falling for it.

I've gotten into the habit of waiting for the other person to speak first when I answer the phone now and the number is unknown to me.

[jbaber]

I am unhappy about the criminal dimension of voice cloning, too, but there are plenty of use cases.

e.g. If I could have a (local!) clone of my own voice, I could get lots of wait-on-the-phone chores done by typing on my desktop to VOIP while accomplishing other things.

[anigbrowl]

But why do you need it to be a clone of your voice? A generic TTS like Siri or a vocaloid would be sufficient.

[sammyyyyyyy]

Yes, you are right. However, there are many upsides to this kind of technology. For example, it can restore the voices of people who were affected by numerous diseases

[jacquesm]

Ok, that's an interesting angle, I had not thought of that, but of course you'd still need a good sample of them from before that happened. Thank you for the explanation.

[Alex2037]

are you under the impression that this is the first such tool? it's not. it's not even the hundredth. this Pandora's box has been opened a long time ago.

[idiotsecant]

There is no such thing as bad technology.

[jacquesm]

That is simply not true. There is lots of bad technology.

[Alex2037]

who gets to decide which technology must be banned? the same people who decide which books must be burned?

[jacquesm]

Surely that would be you.

[idiotsecant]

Like what? There's no technology that simply by existing causes harm to the world, people do that part.

[cookiengineer]

> Like what? There's no technology that simply by existing causes harm to the world, people do that part.

People create that technology, therefore enforcing their own lack of morals and lack of ethics onto it. That's the part that most humans in the post-digital age seem to ignore to purposefully deflect and absolve themselves from any responsibilities.

Also, companies will always be controlled by humans that optimized their life for greed, not by the ones that specialized on philosophical implications.

The inventors of novichok or the nuclear bomb didn't have "world peace" in mind. They had "world peace through me enforcing my own will onto my enemies" in mind.

[CamperBob2]

The inventors of novichok or the nuclear bomb didn't have "world peace" in mind. They had "world peace through me enforcing my own will onto my enemies" in mind.

I don't know about Novichok, but nuclear bombs have stopped world wars, at least so far.

[numpad0]

like that chemical weapon that was specifically designed to react with gas mask absorbent materials so to activate at the protected side so to circumvent filteration(long banned since the end of WWI).

[burnt-resistor]

I hate to admit it, but it's true. Technology is amoral and neutral rather than morally directed, it can directed towards profits, control, and nefarious goals, sure. It's the added externalities in the form of lost jobs and suffering borne by many and power gained by a few that technological advancement enables. The decision to or how to use technology by human decisions is where a moral crossroad exists and is considered or ignored by the stakeholders involved. Substantive engineering ethics isn't much of a thing anymore as long the TC is enough, but performative complaints about napkins not being 100% recycled or insufficient planted trees are the ostensible substitutes.

[CoastalCoder]

> There is no such thing as bad technology.

If nothing else, it's a debate where we'd need to define our terms.